TexasCHLforum.com

Scott in Houston wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

Scott in Houston wrote:

alexrex20 wrote:I wonder how many people pull over at the state boundary to disarm and lock up the handgun, every time they cross into/out of LA/AR/OK/NM... Then pull over again to unlock the handgun and reholster.

I assume you mean non-CHL carriers? If you have your Texas CHL, why would you do this?

State law, and thus reciprocity, does not apply on tribal lands unless tribal law recognizes that law.
IF FOPA does apply when traveling across tribal land, you would be obligated to stop, unload and secure the weapon, unless tribal law allows otherwise...

This is my OPINION. Not legal advice.

I think I misunderstood what he was saying... I was picturing the state boundary with Texas and these states, but he apparently meant the Tribal Land and those states. haha. I took it out of context of the thread. My bad.
When I see those states grouped, in my head, I automatically think, "Texas Border States".

I think you understood correctly, Scott.
It was a good question from Alex, but pointed to state boundaries rather than tribal lands...
I was just trying to bring it back on topic by returning the discussion to tribal land.

RoyGBiv wrote: I think you understood correctly, Scott.
It was a good question from Alex, but pointed to state boundaries rather than tribal lands...
I was just trying to bring it back on topic by returning the discussion to tribal land.

Thanks. Sorry for taking us off-course.

alexrex20 wrote:I wonder how many people pull over at the state boundary to disarm and lock up the handgun, every time they cross into/out of LA/AR/OK/NM... Then pull over again to unlock the handgun and reholster.

Tribal lands are different and under their own rules. So, crossing state line NORMALLY would only mean you must follow the state laws, and with a CHL you have reciprocity. In this case, when you cross into tribal lands you need to try and follow their laws. I do know for a fact, as long as you stay on the highways in OK and don't wander off them very far they follow the state rules on CHL. However, you go to a casino or other tribal specific area, then you could be at their mercy for enforcement of their laws by the tribal police.

If its a state highway or an interstate, I follow state law on the highway.

If its a tribal highway built without state or federal funds...let me get back to you if I ever see that.

...ain't THAT the truth!!!

I suggest that if you frequently cross over Indian land, you read Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe and Duro v. Reina. The gist for the lazy is that Indian tribes have their sovereignty limited to other Indians in criminal affairs, albeit that it extends to all other Indians and not just members of that specific tribe. If you're not an Indian, then their "sovereignty" is simply the natural and normal powers of property ownership, or the execution of state/federal law if their local PD happens to be state/federal commissioned, etc. If Tribe X doesn't want handguns on their land, they can ban carry for Indians with a penalty of up to 6 months in prison (according to the limits imposed by federal law), but non-Indians can only be trespassed off the reservation, casino, or other property. Note that courts have held that as sovereign entities, even if they can't prosecute non-Indians, they do possess sovereign immunity and you might not get very far at all trying to remedy any faults in court (Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez).

Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA) is some pretty interesting reading. Thanks for bringing it up.

LWS380,

If you hear a banjo, I don't think your on a reservation...

Oldgringo wrote:Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA) is some pretty interesting reading. Thanks for bringing it up.

bayouhazard wrote:If its a state highway or an interstate, I follow state law on the highway.

If its a tribal highway built without state or federal funds...let me get back to you if I ever see that.

"Keep to the roods, stay clear o' the moors."

denwego wrote:I suggest that if you frequently cross over Indian land, you read Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe and Duro v. Reina. The gist for the lazy is that Indian tribes have their sovereignty limited to other Indians in criminal affairs, albeit that it extends to all other Indians and not just members of that specific tribe. If you're not an Indian, then their "sovereignty" is simply the natural and normal powers of property ownership, or the execution of state/federal law if their local PD happens to be state/federal commissioned, etc. If Tribe X doesn't want handguns on their land, they can ban carry for Indians with a penalty of up to 6 months in prison (according to the limits imposed by federal law), but non-Indians can only be trespassed off the reservation, casino, or other property. Note that courts have held that as sovereign entities, even if they can't prosecute non-Indians, they do possess sovereign immunity and you might not get very far at all trying to remedy any faults in court (Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez).

Interesting.. thanks.!

Seems that Duro was abrogated by new legislations from Congress in 1990.... but Oliphant still stands despite quite a bit of negative opinion.